Art and Artifice

Every art has something of art and something of artifice. There is no artifice without art, and no art without artifice. Without both, neither would be possible.

What then is the relation between intention and meaning in art? The artist speaks best that message which he does not intend. Intending to speak a message, he rarely ever succeeds in affectively communicating it. But some arts are more receptive to the intentional impression of meaning than others. As a general rule, the more an art is based in artifice, the easier it is to effectively communicate a meaning intended. But just as the accidental is not inessential or subordinate to meaning, so too is artifice not without its art.

The art of artifice is its technique. Since artifice is artificial, it is superordinate to the content inscribed within it. As method, it structures that which is without structure. As technique, it works upon dead matter so as to present it in a way, so as to re-present it as what it is not. A diamond as itself will not sparkle, and gold of itself does not shine. Only when it has been worked upon can it be seen for what it is, that is to say, for what it is not.

At the same time, the spirit of art is something wholly other from technique. It is that spirit which moves in music, soaring with our heart and plummeting into our soul. It is that tear which rolls down our cheek as we are touched by the marvelous sensuality of flowing drapes locked into marble. But none of this should mistake us into thinking that the purpose of art is merely to move us to feeling. Beauty is not grounded in emotion; it is grounded in spirit. The end of art is not to move us to feeling; it is to move us to meaning.